US attacks Syrian (Assad government) air base

^ what about this though. Chemicals were used (all agreed, right?) and somebody will pay. For now, it's a concrete airfield that's paying. With about $40-60M in cruise missiles, no small change. Next mother-f that does this, and they home in closer. It's a means to that deterrent end, no matter how it happened (above scenarios ^), right?

The US fires some missiles into a small airstrip in the middle of nowhere. Putin acts outraged (even though he knew about it beforehand) and Trump scores points at home and ends any discussion about him being soft on the Russians. Hillary and the dems are frozen because Trump just did what she stated he should do earlier in the day.

There is a good chance that Assad didn't make a chemical weapons assault, at least not on purpose.

What did he have to gain? If he did he has the world on his ass just to take out a few civilians - not a smart move. He could have used regular bombs for that as per usual and nobody would notice. Here are some possibilities, given that some kind of munitions were dropped by Syrian planes.

What prompted the US to take direct military action against Assad's forces?

Marwan Bishara: Publicly, the US administration justified its response on humanitarian grounds and "vital national security interests".

I doubt there's much currency to either.

If President Donald Trump cared so much for Syrian children, he would not have barred them from entering the US. As for security, the chemical attack - horrible as it, maybe - is of no threat to vital US national security.

If, on the other hand, it was established that ISIL or al-Qaeda had carried out the attack using sarin gas, then there would be ground for concern to US forces in the area.

This was both a win-win strategic and political step by the Trump administration. The "proportionate" military response is meant to shore up Trump's popularity in the polls and to project an image of boldness and decisiveness.

It's a pinprick attack that's designed as a low-risk response that puts the Syrian regime on notice, increases the heat on Russia and opens the way for a more substantial US involvement in shaping the future of Syria.

It also establishes Trump's independence from Moscow and helps remove some of the suspicion of his alleged shady relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

*snip*

Did Trump come up with this all on his own?

Bishara: Absolutely not. Despite his insistence that he knows more than the generals, Trump has proven ignorant and out-of-his-depth on strategy and foreign policy.

As the commander-in-chief, he's the one to give the order - but it was the generals he appointed to his cabinet that are behind this decision and others in the future.

As I see it, Defence Secretary James Mattis, Homeland Security chief John Kelly and National Security Adviser H R McMaster are the trio in control of US national security policy.

*snip*

What's the endgame now that the attack has been carried out?

Bishara: In strategic and political terms this has been a low-risk, high-yield scenario for the Trump administration. It has shored up the president's popularity among many Democrats and the mainstream media and earned much praise from regional and international powers.

Already, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Israel, as well as Britain, the European Union and Australia, among others, have come out in support of the US attack.

It showed that Trump could and would act more boldly than his predecessor when needed. And that he won't go to Congress before carrying out such an attack.

Although limited in focus and nature, the US army's attack on Shayrat airfield paves the way for more of the same military actions - and that will improve US leverage in future negotiations over Syria.

It also demonstrated to Russia and Iran that the US must be taken seriously moving forward in Syria, and proved that Trump doesn't require an absolute proof of culpability of the Syrian regime over chemical attacks in order to punish it.

This is especially important because the punitive attack came against the backdrop of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson's claim shortly after this week's chemical attack that "steps are under way" to form an international coalition to remove Assad.

this is what I wish he had stuck to.
Trump and Putin should work together to put Assad back in control in syria. Haven't we learned these countries are better off with authoritarian SECULAR strongmen in charge? Libya was better off with Gaddafi and Iraq was better off with saddam

They are going to continue attacks against rebels, that was never in doubt. The cruise missile plan was to end gas attacks.

Syrian warplanes took off from an air base which was hit by U.S. cruise missiles on Friday, and carried out air strikes on rebel-held areas in the eastern Homs countryside, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said.

this is what I wish he had stuck to.
Trump and Putin should work together to put Assad back in control in syria. Haven't we learned these countries are better off with authoritarian SECULAR strongmen in charge? Libya was better off with Gaddafi and Iraq was better off with saddam

I agree that sticking with his non-interventionist sentiments would have been good. Ironically lobbing those missiles at Syria is about the most mainstream thing Trump has done so far. I could picture Bill Clinton, Obama, or either Bush giving the same order

The venerable Tomahawk cruise missile, used in conflicts big and small since 1991, took center stage once again in an April 7 strike that rained some five dozen of the weapons upon a Syrian airfield believed to have launched a chemical attack. But its end is in sight, if not exactly imminent.

The U.S. Navy, which currently has some 4,000 Tomahawks, plans to stop buying the venerable weapon in the next few years. Service leaders haven’t fully articulated their plans to replace it, but they have started talking about the need for a “Next Generation Land Attack Weapon” slated to enter service more than a decade hence.

In 2014, then-Navy acquisition chief Sean Stackley (now the Navy’s acting secretary) told the House Armed Services Seapower and Projection Forces subcommittee that the next-generation weapon could be an upgraded Tomahawk or a different weapon.

“[W]e are moving forward with development of what has been referred to as next-generation land-attack weapon,” Stackley said. “And the key elements of that weapon will be its increased lethality, survivability beyond what Tomahawk brings today.”

More recently, in October, the Navy asked defense firms to provide information about technologies they are working on that could be used in these future weapons.

Syrian fighter aircraft used the just-struck al-Shayrat airfield on Friday to launch attacks against regime opponents, less than 24 hours after the United States tossed dozens of missiles at the base with the hopes of sending a “message” to the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad about its use of chemical weapons.

The immediate Syrian defiance highlighted the pinprick nature of the U.S. reprisal, which the Trump administration — and plenty of lawmakers from both parties — cheered as a seemingly tough response to Syria’s repeated use of banned weapons to cow a rebellious populace. Some 80 people died in the sarin gas attack Tuesday, which was carried out by the Syrian regime, according to U.S. officials.

Looming over the broadly-cheered strikes on Friday was the apparent lack of any overarching strategy to lever Assad out of power or facilitate a political solution to the six-year old Syrian civil war. Key allies, most of the State Department, and Congress were all kept in the dark regarding the missile launch, which Trump announced to Chinese President Xi Jinping as the two dined Thursday at Trump’s Florida resort.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on Friday said the aim of the operation, involving 59 Tomahawk missiles fired from two U.S. naval ships in the eastern Mediterranean, was to render the airbase “inoperable.” He called the strike, which targeted the airfield and support structures nearby, an “overwhelming success.”

Sometimes I also think it's too bad that young men in fighting shape are fleeing. But I also think it might be hard to know what side to be on if you stayed. It's ugly. And there is at least three sides. Assad's army, ISIS, and various "rebels".

1. “There’s a new sheriff in town.” The attacks reflect the promise US President Donald Trump campaigned on: the return of a “strong leader.” The impetus for the attack may have been domestic, international or both. If it was the former, then it’s mostly about impressing the domestic constituency, fixing failing ratings, winning points with Congress and distancing himself from the image of the “Kremlin candidate.” If the impetus was about his international posturing, he had to send a clear message to America’s foes and allies: Please the Israelis, satisfy the Gulf, alert Iranians, warn North Koreans and strip Russians of the perception that they run the show.

The Kremlin was puzzled by this move from someone it had expected to be a partner against international terrorism. Thus came the reaction from Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova: “Western analysts say the ‘Russian threat’ is derived from Russia’s unpredictability. Today we witnessed that the real country that is unpredictable is the United States.” The message April 7 from America’s UN ambassador, Nikki Haley, was also alarming, as it was seen as signaling there could be more US military action.

Vasily Kashin, a senior fellow at the Center for Comprehensive European and International Studies at the Higher School of Economics in Moscow, said Trump's intent was clear when he ordered the attack while Chinese President Xi Jinping was in the United States “to show his own swagger.”

“I believe it was a mistake,” Kashin said on Facebook. “The Chinese will take it as an intentional humiliation. They will put up a good face but at some point will take revenge.”

*snip*

2. “The tail wags the dog.” In this hypothetical, the Syria strikes weren’t Trump’s decision. He might have been simply cornered by public pressure, as well as by Democrats and Republicans, to take action against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. He might have been tricked into believing that Assad alone was to blame for the gas attack, just after Trump had said he wasn’t opposed to the Syrian president remaining in power. In this narrative, the forced departure of Steven Bannon from the National Security Council signals a shift in the administration’s policy, and the Syria strikes were one result.

*snip*

3. “The art of the deal.” The military strikes might not have been coordinated with Moscow, but there was some kind of an agreement via military or intelligence channels that the action would be taken for political reasons that would sit well with the White House and the Kremlin. Those supporting this third narrative point to the rather courteous nature of the bilateral communication before the attack. The Department of Defense says the United States warned Russia ahead of the strike “to minimize risk to Russian or Syrian personnel.” Syria’s armed forces were also warned and “took precautions in more than one military point, including in the Shayrat air base.”

Only 23 of the 59 cruise missiles launched actually hit their targets, which Moscow says indicates that the United States never really intended to inflict serious damage. As a result, the strikes destroyed only one equipment depot, a training building, six MiG-23 aircraft in repair hangars and a radar station, while the runway, taxiways and Syrian air force aircraft in parking areas remained intact.

One theory insists that since the poisonous gas attack was the first serious international crisis for the American president, he had to respond forcefully. Yet, unwilling to risk a full-scale war with Russia, he had to have an agreement with Moscow that Russia’s response wouldn’t go beyond the expected heated rhetoric and some symbolic moves that wouldn’t hurt American interests. The strikes would punish Assad and satisfy warmongers in the United States and the region — but the conflict could be mitigated eventually, as Lavrov and US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson meet April 11-12.

(CNN)A series of explosions was reported late Saturday in al-Mazzeh, the location of a large military airport near Damascus.

The private, pro-regime news outlet al-Mayadeen originally reported that Israeli airstrikes hit the airbase near Damascus with multiple missiles. However, Syrian state media later cited an unnamed military source denying the base was hit by Israel.

Besides the military airport, the al-Mazzeh area is home to embassies, security buildings and the homes of some members of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's inner circle, according to opposition activists.